What were your probation terms? What discipline are you in?

[MKDons]

I've not long started a lectureship and I've got my probation meeting later this week.

Informally I've been told my probation terms (three year probation) are likely to be £200K grant income, 6-9 papers, 75% or above teaching scores, recruitment of at least two PhD students.

I'm in sciences.

My friend who's in social sciences was at this. His probation terms were submit three papers (not necessarily published) and apply for about £100K (not necessarily successful). Plus, standard 75% teaching scores.

What were your probation terms like? Is there really so much different between disciplines?

Yes, there is a lot of difference between disciplines.

Typical research income per head varies by more than a factor of ten between disciplines. Publication rates also vary hugely.

Neither your terms nor his terms seem particularly unreasonable to me. I can't judge further without knowing the level of university, specific subject area etc.

I'm in sciences and I'd say the 200k grant income is unreasonable for probation. As a requirement to grant applications, sure, but with funding getting continuously cut and success rates running at 10-15% (at best, depending on funder) it makes no sense to require something that is out of your control.

Paper numbers may be ok, depending on the norms in your field. It would be too high in mine. Teaching scores are ok.

Doesn't your institution have formal, written criteria for academic probation? I'd be wary of relying on only informal guidance.

There aren't any formal guidelines, no. The policy just says it's discipline/department specific and up to the HOD and lecturer to decide.

It's an RG university.

I'm getting really worried about it

I’ve just started a post as a senior lecturer and have 12 months probation but nothing like that.

Previous full time lecturing post had a six month probation period and no targets at all. Nobody ever even came and watched me teach so I didn’t have any teaching scores that I was aware of. Never done any research or published any papers. I have nothing to do with grant income or PhD students.

I am also in a RG university, in social sciences, and our probationary periods are very clearly specified in terms of what you need to do to pass, down to how many REFable papers, what grant income is brought in (they distinguish between grants you are on with a higher figure, and what specific amount is personally attributable to you) and other measures, but they are the main ones. Some flexibility is applied around whether you actually get the grants, because this is not controllable. If it is to be 'on' grants around £200,000 that would be similar to ours, if you have to have £200,000 directly attributable to you, that is high. Papers- in some sciences people publish higher numbers so I guess it depends how many typically would be produced in a year.

Ours is rigid but people do seem to get through it, mostly.

I'm in sciences and I'd say the 200k grant income is unreasonable for probation.

There are a few research areas in science where you need to get a large grant (ERC or equivalent) to get a probationary/permanent track job at all. From the perspective of these areas, getting 200k over 3 years is not unreasonable.

Note also that the average research income per head in physical sciences (experimental) is around 100-120k per annum in RG departments - again, from this perspective 200k over three years is a little high for an early career researcher, but not ridiculous.

user but the point I'm making is that any minimum £ grand income is unreasonable for probation. Insisting on securing grant income - as opposed to applying for it - is a very poor way to run an academic probationary system. And yes, I'm talking about RG and other research-intensive institutions in my disapproval.

I used to sit on the probation panel of a science faculty where we reviewed cases from across all science departments. My university used to lack transparent, formal criteria for passing probation - instead, departments did their own thing per discipline and it turned out different individuals were being given different probation criteria - and there was systematic bias all over the place. Requiring probationers to secure grant funding, when funding bodies' own success stats showed they favoured male white applicants, basically led to more women failing probation. Since my university introduced centralised probation criteria (qualified per discipline norms but not rewritten), where probationers are only required to apply for rather then secure funding, the rate of male/female academics passing probation has equalised. And it hasn't led to a drop in departmental research income either... quite then opposite, in fact.

(End rant.)

OP - I realise that you appear to be stuck in an old-school system. My sympathies. I would advise finding some other recent arrivals ASAP and swapping details of your probation criteria. If you all have the same criteria, then that's something. But if you're each getting variable criteria to pass probation according to your HoD's whim, then that's a Very Bad Thing so please come back to let us know.

Insisting on securing grant income - as opposed to applying for it - is a very poor way to run an academic probationary system.

In reality in the academic world success at getting grants does matter. It shouldn't be measured over short time scales and unreasonably high hurdles should not be set, but nor can one pretend that just applying for grants is enough in fields where research income is necessary to carry out research i.e. equipment and staff are needed.

any minimum £ grand income is unreasonable for probation

I think this is too extreme. Again, if you work in an experimental field where equipment and postdocs are needed to carry out research, and where the average income per head is 100-200k per year, then a department asking that somebody should have achieved at least some income in three years cannot be unreasonable. The issue is where the bar should be set.

I do completely agree about bars being subjective, applied unequally, about grant success rates favouring white men. But in reality most probation hurdles are well below what one would expect an "average" new lecturer to be doing. 200k in 3 years sounds fairly high, but without details of the field it is really hard to tell.

Also not having ballpark figures for a department and leaving it entirely up to the judgment of the line manager/head of department doesn't necessarily help. The same biases come back in: "Oh, he didn't get any money in but he's a great guy and he's sure to be successful soon" compared to "She got 100k, but look at that superstar at Oxbridge who has an ERC grant, maybe we could get that person to come to us instead of keeping her."

Lecturers supposed to pull in £100k/yr, Profs need to pull in £200k/yr. Not RG Uni, not probation, MedSci.

In reality in the academic world success at getting grants does matter.

Well doh! Of course! But in the 3 years following appointment to a first academic post, success at getting grants should not be a minimum hurdle. There are too many external factors outwith the probationer's control, not least the shrinking pool of research funding at a national level.

Once a probationary period is over and they're in a normal L position, sure, the kid gloves come off, but at least now they have the security of a permanent post and are already publishing and teaching appropriately. It would be difficult to be promoted to SL without success securing funding as a PI (I won't say impossible because most research intensive institutions also have promotion via a teaching led strand) but someone in year 4-6 of a lecturer post is in an immensely better position to secure funding than someone in year 1-3. That's why probationers should have very different criteria to permanent staff: it's about managing and investing in ECRs. A lecturer failing probation should be a very rare event, and if it happens with any regularity then it reflects poorly on management in the department.

if you work in an experimental field where equipment and postdocs are needed to carry out research, and where the average income per head is 100-200k per year, then a department asking that somebody should have achieved at least some income in three years cannot be unreasonable.

I do work in such a field and I respectfully disagree. It is unreasonable for probation, a poor way to manage ECRs, and contributes to the steadily decline in the proportion of women as academic seniority increases.

It’s this sort of toxic workplace that induces excessive stress. Just look up the case of the Imperial professor from a few years back. It’s quite unreasonable for a professor. It’s absolutely unreasonable for a probationer to have an grant income target.

A lecturer failing probation should be a very rare event, and if it happens with any regularity then it reflects poorly on management in the department.

Yes, it should be rare. If it happens often, then there are significant issues - selection of lecturers, support, criteria for probation. I am not aware of any UK department where failing probation is more than a very rare event.

On the other hand, as somebody in a senior position, I am aware of quite a lot of people who passed through probation despite many red flags - and who have been underperforming ever since. Is it fair for people to be retained permanently, when they are significantly underperforming? When this underperformance means that their colleagues have to do more of the department's work?

Failure to get grant income would almost never be used to fail probation unless there are other red flags. Perhaps the probationary period would be extended, but more likely the probationer would pass if lack of grant income is the only issue.

someone in year 4-6 of a lecturer post is in an immensely better position to secure funding than someone in year 1-3.

This is simply not true in some research areas. There are specific funding schemes that are targeted at those who have just been appointed - "first grants". These are quite a bit easier than standard grants, as they are judged only against other first grants.

Mine (medical sciences, RG) are -

some grant success (unspecified, but I was one who was promoted internally from postdoc after I won a big grant on my own);
to have a PhD student pass;
Take part in the department, sit on a few committees
And to be refable as senior author

I have 4.5 years

I should say that when those were set the department knew I would bring in more than 200k per year, as I had won that much the month before